Skip to main content

Full text of "Mathura A District Memoir"

See other formats


138             iHscBiraoN FOUND HEAR THE M&NOHAIOTB MOSQUE.

appears to have "beect at one time part of the mediaeval city wall, down to the

edge of iihe river.   On the right-hand side is the stone-cutters' quarter with the

small old temple of Bankhandi Mahadeva, near which is a high momnd, lying back

from the main streets between the dispensary and the kotwali, and now crown-

ed by- a ruinous little shrine dedicated to BIh&ri ; from this I brought a Bod-

dhist pillar, "bearing the figure 'of a dancing-girl, with a leonine monster at her

feet and over her head a group representing a teacher of the law seated under an

umbrella addressing an audience of ten persons*   To the left of the road is the

suburb of Manoharpnr, with a mosque which, as we leam from the following

inscription over the centre arch, was erected in the year 1158 Hijrij i . 1745

A.D., during the reign of Muhammad Shah : 

I " In the reign, of Shah Muhammad Shah, ABdurrashid built this mosque :
thought suggested the tdnkh,  He built a beautiful mosque.*"' [A. H. 1158 ;
or A J3. 1745].
From an adjoining street, where it had been built up into a mud wall, I
removed to the museum a stone fragment of exceptional interest   It is only a
small headless seated nude figure and, to judge from the style of the sculpture
and the ill-formed letters in the Pali inscription at the base} is of no very
great antiquity.    Under it is a row of six  standing figures, three n either
side of a central chakra.   The inscription records nothing whatever beyond
ike date^ but this is given both in words and figures as follows : Samvatsars
sapta panydse 57 himanta ttitiye divase trayadase a$ya purvayam,  that is to
say  in the year fifty-seven (57) on the thirteenth day of the third winter
' month,9   It is curious in two ways : jirstj beeause it definitely fixes, beyond
any   possibility   of  doubt,   the   value of the symbol representing 50 ; and
~ secondly, because if the date is  really the year 57 of the same era as  that
employed in the inscriptions of KanisM:a and Huvishka, it is  the earliest
unmistakeabie Jaiua figure yet found in the neighbourhood.   The computation
by seasons certaialy favours the idea of antiquity aai the -argument for its
modern date, derived from the character of the sculpture and of the lettering^
may be deceptive ; for at any period different styles both of carving and writing
may exist simultaneously ; yet probably the solution of the difficulty is to be
found in Mr, Thomas's theory already mentioned, according to whieh the date
is not given in fall, but specifies only the year of the century, omitting the
century itself^ as being at the time well known.